United States v. Paul Jenkins
528 F. App'x 483
6th Cir.2013Background
- Jenkins and Jahns pled guilty to felon-in-possession of firearms.
- District court treated three Kentucky burglaries as violent felonies under ACCA to enhance sentences.
- Defendants challenge the violent-felony classifications as inaccurate and seek to invalidate them.
- They argue prior counsel conflicts of interest taint the convictions, potentially rendering them unconstitutional under Custis.
- Jenkins appeals his sentence for substantive and procedural reasonableness, including a four-level enhancement for firearm trafficking.
- Court holds the Kentucky second-degree burglary qualifies as a violent felony and rejects the conflict-of-interest challenge; sustains the sentence and enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky second-degree burglary is a violent felony under ACCA | Jenkins/Jahns contend it is not | Government asserts it fits ACCA §924(e)(2)(B)(ii) | Yes, it is a violent felony under ACCA |
| Whether additional prior convictions were properly counted as violent felonies | Defendants argue over-inclusion | Government maintains they also qualify | Yes, those convictions also amount to violent felonies under the statute |
| Whether residual clause in ACCA is void-for-vagueness | Jahns contends residual clause invalid | Residual clause upheld as valid purposively broadening violent felonies | Issues regarding residual clause not dispositive; court rejects challenge on the merits |
| Whether conflict of interest of prior counsel invalidates prior convictions under Custis | Custis exception would allow collateral attack if unrepresented | Conflict-of-interest arguments do not fall within exception | Custis exception not satisfied; convictions valid under Custis |
| Whether Jenkins's sentence is procedurally/substantively reasonable given the firearm-trafficking enhancement | Disagree with four-level §2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement and disparity with co-defendant | Enhancement supported by facts; disparity permitted by law | Sentence affirmed; enhancement upheld and disparity not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of burglary in ACCA context; ties to violent felony)
- United States v. Jones, 673 F.3d 497 (2012) (second-degree burglary in Tennessee fits § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii))
- United States v. Coleman, 655 F.3d 480 (2011) (Ohio third-degree burglary as violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Anderson, 923 F.2d 450 (1991) (Tennessee burglary as violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Skipper, 552 F.3d 489 (2009) (Ohio fourth-degree burglary under § 4B1.1/ACCA)
- United States v. Wright, 423 F. App’x 515 (2011) (Ohio fourth-degree burglary under § 924(e))
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (cannot collateral attack prior state conviction in § 924(e) sentence case absent Gideon-rights breach)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (residual clause interpretation)
- United States v. Taylor, 696 F.3d 628 (2012) (reaffirmation on residual clause)
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (support for § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement)
- Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (upholding § 2K2.1(b)(5) in similar context)
- Simmons, 501 F.3d 620 (2007) (disparity considerations; national, not individual,)
- Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (2008) (discretion in considering disparities)